"Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life," the actor continued.

Jesus Christ folks, even if you believe in God and creationism, you still have to either believe: A. Something was always here, or B. Something came from nothing. Either one can be consistent with scientific theories about the origins of the universe.

Smackledorfer:"Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life," the actor continued.

Jesus Christ folks, even if you believe in God and creationism, you still have to either believe: A. Something was always here, or B. Something came from nothing. Either one can be consistent with scientific theories about the origins of the universe.

TheBigJerk:Smackledorfer: "Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life," the actor continued.

Jesus Christ folks, even if you believe in God and creationism, you still have to either believe: A. Something was always here, or B. Something came from nothing. Either one can be consistent with scientific theories about the origins of the universe.

FTFA: "Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life," the actor continued.

Dear Kirk,

One: The laws that rule our universe do not apply outside our universe. That includes whatever it was our universe exists in. It anything. And we're getting pretty close to figuring out how our universe came into being anyway. So your God of the Gaps argument is pretty much complete BS.

Two: Stop trying to conflate spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. They are not the same thing. This has been explained to you multiple times. We have video evidence, you dishonest little turd.

One: The laws that rule our universe do not apply outside our universe. That includes whatever it was our universe exists in. It anything. And we're getting pretty close to figuring out how our universe came into being anyway. So your God of the Gaps argument is pretty much complete BS.

Two: Stop trying to conflate spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. They are not the same thing. This has been explained to you multiple times. We have video evidence, you dishonest little turd.

"Professor Hawking is heralded as 'the genius of Britain,' yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life," the actor continued.

If you think a genius scientist's position on science is wrong, you should first ask yourself if you don't understand his position, and then ask yourself if you are sure you even understand the science.

"to say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas."

Uhm. His disability has nothing to do with his brain. Your only reason for you to say that is because you're worried about someone saying that you're just being mean to him because he's disabled - which no one would, because you're arguing with his ideas, and those ideas don't come from his disability. By extension, the only reason for you to say that is if you're self-conscious about it, which means...

Y'know, there was a time, about a quarter-century ago, when Kirk Cameron was one of the hottest stars on TV. A teen heartthrob on a smash hit sitcom, if he wanted to he could have had movie deals, other shows, been a celebrity.

However, he found Jebus and went off the deep end, to the point that he started ramming his religion down the production staff's throats, and IIRC even tried to have some cast members fired he considered too sinful.

He managed to take that rising Hollywood star and flush it, and spend the next few decades showing his increasing irrelevance. Well, I hope he's happy with his religion he traded his career for. Looks like he sure does have some rocking birthday parties with all his new friends.

Why can't both beliefs be valid? Why can't some believe that a heaven exists after you die, and other believe that heaven doesn't exist and life just ends? Both systems are valid because, well, they are. I have no proof that heaven does or does not exist, and will not until I die. By then, it's too late for me to report back and tell everybody what there really is, so we just have to rely on faith...or whatever our mind tells us is true. Isn't that kind of how it is for the unknown?

So Kirk Cameron can go on believing that there is a heaven and God made the world in 6 days and take the Bible at its literal word, and Stephen Hawking can go on believing that there is no heaven and the world came from something and that something (or nothing), or anything in between. Both can be valid and both can coexist.

But no, people have to get into poo flinging arguments about it.

For the record I subscribe to evolution because, well, there's proof. We see it everyday in the smallest lifeforms on the planet (viruses). I also subscribe to their being a heaven, because it sounds a lot more fun than going nowhere when I die. I can be good with two sides of the coin, why can't everyone else?

to say anything negative about Stephen Hawking is like bullying a blind man. He has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas.

Yes, Kirk. Hawking has won global acclaim in the scientific community, holds a prestigious post at his university and his books are bestsellers because everyone feels pity for him. I may go over to do his laundry, and say "oh, I was just passing by, but as long as I'm here..."

Silverstaff:Y'know, there was a time, about a quarter-century ago, when Kirk Cameron was one of the hottest stars on TV. A teen heartthrob on a smash hit sitcom, if he wanted to he could have had movie deals, other shows, been a celebrity.

However, he found Jebus and went off the deep end, to the point that he started ramming his religion down the production staff's throats, and IIRC even tried to have some cast members fired he considered too sinful.

He managed to take that rising Hollywood star and flush it, and spend the next few decades showing his increasing irrelevance. Well, I hope he's happy with his religion he traded his career for. Looks like he sure does have some rocking birthday parties with all his new friends.

I'm sure he is. He's making more money off his religion than he would have if he'd have tried to stay in Hollywood. Money is all that matters to folks like him.

Cubs300:Why can't both beliefs be valid? Why can't some believe that a heaven exists after you die, and other believe that heaven doesn't exist and life just ends? Both systems are valid because, well, they are. I have no proof that heaven does or does not exist, and will not until I die. By then, it's too late for me to report back and tell everybody what there really is, so we just have to rely on faith...or whatever our mind tells us is true. Isn't that kind of how it is for the unknown?

Cubs300:Why can't both beliefs be valid? Why can't some believe that a heaven exists after you die, and other believe that heaven doesn't exist and life just ends? Both systems are valid because, well, they are. I have no proof that heaven does or does not exist, and will not until I die. By then, it's too late for me to report back and tell everybody what there really is, so we just have to rely on faith...or whatever our mind tells us is true. Isn't that kind of how it is for the unknown?

So Kirk Cameron can go on believing that there is a heaven and God made the world in 6 days and take the Bible at its literal word, and Stephen Hawking can go on believing that there is no heaven and the world came from something and that something (or nothing), or anything in between. Both can be valid and both can coexist.

But no, people have to get into poo flinging arguments about it.

For the record I subscribe to evolution because, well, there's proof. We see it everyday in the smallest lifeforms on the planet (viruses). I also subscribe to their being a heaven, because it sounds a lot more fun than going nowhere when I die. I can be good with two sides of the coin, why can't everyone else?

::sigh::

People vote and pass laws based on their 'faith...or whatever their minds tell them is true'. If you want to believe in candyland after death because it makes you feel good, I don't give a fark. The atheists of the world, even the militant ones, just want to prevent tax money and laws from being passed based on your sky wizard. Some of them, and sometimes myself, are dicks about it. You'll get over that.

The religionists of the world want to keep my gay friend from having the same legal benefits with his partner as I will (among a shiat load of other things they do). People like you then step back, taking what they believe to be the high road, and pretend both sides are equally bad. They aren't.

The worst thing an atheist accomplishes that hurts the religious is removing the ten commandments or a damn christmas tree from government property. Oh, and forcing them accept the non-religious, which is like the worst oppression ever.

Plus even if you retroactively eliminated atheism from the universe, the same religious groups forcing their trees and commandments into the government would be fighting with other religious groups. The ONLY solution with so many disparate belief systems is either: A. an equal country for every group, however the fark you'd measure that to satisfy every group, or B. governments that are secular and non-religious, which is what the atheists push for. So the atheist solution to the problem is, in fact, the best-fit solution to most countries even if there were no atheists.